will Republicans obtain a majority in the Senate?

What I remember very well is the polls having Romney in a landslide.

 

I remember no such poll......In fact the polls showed all along how much of a long shot it would be for romney to win.

 

Maybe this will help you out:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/07/the-romney-landslide-that-wasnt/191203

 

Those are predictions not poll numbers.

 

Starting under Bush senior, the Justice Department started working on redistricting to enable minority districts. In Florida we have a district that runs from Jacksonville to almost Orlando, sometimes just running along railroad tracks, in order to provide a Black House member. The Democrats could potentially have more safe House seats if they were willing to let go of the minority ones, which work out to the Republicans benefit.

Of course, starting with the next redistricting, it's unlikely that any combination will lead to a Republican majority House.

 

Irrelevant. On off year elections, it's about turnout, not party switching.

 

Yeah, it's funny how dedistricting that's been done by the Dems actually hurt them a lot, and people now complain that it's all the GOP's fault.

I think the next redistricting is too far off to be concerned with. It's 2020, right? I don't think it has an electoral effect until 2022, and so I wouldn't be concerned in the near future about it. There's no real knowing what the political landscape will be like then. The GOP will probably be significantly more libertarian.

 

Well it's partially the Republican's fault in that the Bush Senior Justice Department actively worked with civil rights organizations to draw up these majority-minority districts. But the practical effect was many more safe Republican districts; districts that Democrats couldn't challenge because their minority/civil rights groups were for them. And you're right that the next round of redistricting is in 2020, but I think by then the national demographics will have altered enough to provide minority-majority districts without creating so many safe Republican districts. In other words, I think this is the high point now of redistricting benefiting Republicans. It will all be down hill after this, regardless of what positions the party takes.

 

That's probably pretty close.

But it is also quite irrelevant.

Elections are usually won or lost as a result of intensity (or the lack thereof). If those opposing ObamaCare have intensity on their side--and therefore show up at the polls in large numbers in November of 2014--whereas those supporing ObamaCare are lethargic and disspirited, it will surely redound to the benefit of the GOP. This is especially significant given the fact that most independents--not just dyed-in-the-wool Republicans--stand opposed to ObamaCare.

Bear in mind, also, that the Democratic base is less inclined to show up at the polls for the midterm elections than the Republican base is; and that President Obama--whose skills as a community organizer are, well, almost extraordinary--will not be on the ballot in 2014.

 

my crystal balls say it will be either a slight GOP majority or a tie

 

Frankly I am much less concerned about the Republicans winning seats as I am concerned about electing people that vote for smart laws or against dumb laws. I could care less if we elect a bunch of Republicans if half of them vote for the kind of absurd socialist crapola we have had this past decade. This country is going down the toilet and fast. If Republicans keep electing people that are for this kind of stuff then frankly it does not matter.

 

This is a good point.

 

I am very skeptical that the GOP will take over the Senate. I expect the GOP to maintain control of the House, and pick up a few seats in the Senate. I would say at best they will gain enough seats to put them at 50.

 

Republicans will hold congress and see gains in the Senate but I think that taking the majority may be too much.

Still, Harry Reid collapsed from "exhaustion" not long after engaging the "nuclear option." If he thought there was no danger of it being used against his party, I don't think he would have bat an eyelash over it.

Latest figures were 815,000 people completed ACA signup in December, bringing the total to 1.1 million out of a goal of 2 million. Thing is, completing the signup means they put an item in their shopping cart, it doesn't mean that they adequately paid for it or that the system will adequately get the information out to insurers. Look up "abandonment rate" in terms of online shopping. The total number of people successfully signed up for health care is probably closer to 600,000 and inadequate levels of young enrollees is practically a given.

 

Basically my view. I don't think it very likely they'll take 51 in the Senate, but I expect them to maintain the House and hold 49-51 seats in the Senate. So 50 is the 'happy median' I'd expect.

 

Fair enough.

 

Either way we'll find out in November.

 

Depends on if the rest of Obamacare hits before the mid terms like it is scheduled. If no exemption or delay decrees from our King, then they will lose solidly and the Republicans will reclaim the Senate. If the employers git hit as hard as the rest of the country impacted already by Obamacare, a recession and lay offs will result.

 

Sorry if that went over your head.

 

it was just an unbelievably obvious statement and, well, moot. :/

 

It may be obvious but factually true.

 

I think it depends on how the elections play out. It also depends on who gets into the senate which will determine what kind of craziness will happen in politics. Right now, we have two extremes on the measure in congress in both the house and in the Senate. The Tea Party has really put a damper on the GOP and really put them on a course to the extreme right. Then you have Democrats who are leaning and wanting to completely hold on to their ideals.

Either way, GOP or Democrats with the majority, I think it all comes down to the people. I really feel that more moderate people from both sides would be good, but the problem with that, you most likely won't get that from the GOP as they really have to swing far right to even have a shot.

 

I would say that republicans will have a net gain of 4-7 seats. Currently they most likely get West Virginia, South Dakota, Montana, and probably Arkansas as well (since it went bright red in the last us senate election held there) Louisiana, North Carolina, and Alaska are pure tossups. After the shutdown it seemed as though they will stay democrat but then Obamacare started and most polling companies moved their statuses back to tossup. They only need 2 of those to get the magic 51 seat majority. I think control of the senate will come down to Louisiana and North Carolina. But if we see margins similar to the 2010 midterms I think republicans can put Iowa and Michigan in play too but that's a long shot.

- - - Updated - - -

I would say that republicans will have a net gain of 4-7 seats. Currently they most likely get West Virginia, South Dakota, Montana, and probably Arkansas as well (since it went bright red in the last us senate election held there) Louisiana, North Carolina, and Alaska are pure tossups. After the shutdown it seemed as though they will stay democrat but then Obamacare started and most polling companies moved their statuses back to tossup. They only need 2 of those to get the magic 51 seat majority. I think control of the senate will come down to Louisiana and North Carolina. But if we see margins similar to the 2010 midterms I think republicans can put Iowa and Michigan in play too but that's a long shot.

 

Good analysis.

Frankly, I have been a bit surprised (and pleasantly so) as to how many people in this thread have set forth realistic scenarios, instead of the usual cheerleading.